Please join in the Valley of the Shadow Annual Fundraiser. We are raising $7,700. Please hit the Tip Jar here to contribute. Thank you.
On 27 June 2007, Prime Minister Tony Blair stepped down and gave the reigns of Westminster to Gordon Brown. Both men are members of New Labour (formerly Labour); Same party, but different political styles.
PM Brown, because of the Westminster system, does not have to call an election until 2010. Brown is not known for his charisma or policies, but that he was Blair's Chancellor of the Exchequer during the past 10 years. Imagine if President Ford, unelected, had chosen to not hold elections until 1980 -- that is the situation the UK is in.
Many American journalists could not fathom how PM Blair could support President Bush after supporting President Clinton. He supported President Clinton during the bombing of Kosovo and President Bush during the Iraq invasion. Why is this important?
Under the Nixonian world view, what a dictator does in his country does not change foreign policy. With the Wilsonian vision, citizens of a country should be free, politically and economically. Blair supported the Anglosphere over the European Union [EU] almost at the cost of his Premiership. Given the current terrorist threats (to be discussed in the next post), should Brown trust the EU and NATO which has no aspect of fighting these multi-national NGO's? Or should the UK try to negotiate with an NGO instead of a Nation-state?
Gordon Brown is known as a technocrat. As Gov. Cuomo once said, "You campaign in poetry and govern in prose," Can anyone quote Brown's campaign speeches?
Until the next PM Elections, everything in England is on a holding pattern (not unlike Israel), but Blair should be commended for supporting Wilsonianism and the Anglosphere. Will Brown do the same or will he kowtow to the bureaucrats of the EU?